PTAB

IPR2019-00790

Free Stream Media Corp d/b/a Samba TV v. Alphonso Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Measuring Advertising Effectiveness
  • Brief Description: The ’755 patent discloses systems and methods for determining an effectiveness metric, known as "lift," for a digital advertising campaign. The method involves correlating data from two sources: a first database of audio-visual (AV) content viewership and a second database of digital ad exposure, and then calculating the resulting lift in viewership.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 10-18, and 22-24 are obvious over Vinson in view of Ray and Banasiewicz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vinson (Application # 2013/0275205), Ray (Application # 2017/0034593), and Banasiewicz (a 2013 textbook on marketing database analytics).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of references teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Vinson was asserted to teach a system for measuring advertisement effectiveness by collecting viewership and ad exposure data for content on a single screen or device. It disclosed calculating viewership percentages for both exposed (test) and unexposed (control) groups to determine a lift metric. Ray was asserted to improve upon Vinson by teaching cross-screen measurement techniques, including building "device graphs" to associate multiple devices (e.g., tablet, TV, mobile) to a single consumer using identifiers like a common IP address. This addresses the reality of a multi-device digital marketplace. Banasiewicz was cited for teaching the conventional industry formula for calculating a normalized lift metric: (Test - Control) / Control, a standard output a POSITA would expect from Vinson’s system.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Vinson and Ray to update Vinson’s single-screen system to the modern, cross-screen digital environment that Ray explicitly addresses, thereby improving the accuracy of ad campaign assessment. Market forces and the desire for more accurate analytics provided a strong incentive for this integration. A POSITA would be further motivated to incorporate the standard (T-C)/C lift calculation from Banasiewicz into the combined Vinson/Ray system to provide an industry-recognized, normalized, and more insightful metric of ad effectiveness, which Vinson suggests its system should provide for advertisers.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying known techniques (cross-screen analytics from Ray, standard lift formula from Banasiewicz) to a known system (Vinson's ad effectiveness analysis) to achieve the predictable result of a more comprehensive and useful advertising metric.

Ground 2: Claims 25-29 are obvious over Vinson, Ray, and Banasiewicz in view of York.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vinson (Application # 2013/0275205), Ray (Application # 2017/0034593), Banasiewicz (2013 textbook), and York (Application # 2009/0030780).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged claims reciting proximity-based ad exposure. Petitioner argued that the core combination of Vinson, Ray, and Banasiewicz teaches the bulk of the claim limitations, as detailed in Ground 1. The additional reference, York, was introduced to teach the specific limitation of using physical proximity as a proxy for ad exposure, particularly for out-of-home (OOH) advertising. York explained that exposure can be defined as an "opportunity to see," such as when a person with a mobile device is in close enough proximity to an OOH media device. This teaches the concept of identifying devices that are "proximate" to a device that received an ad. Ray was also argued to teach using "digital billboards" and associating devices based on physical closeness.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add the teachings of York to the Vinson/Ray system to extend advertising effectiveness analysis to OOH campaigns, such as those on digital billboards, which Ray already disclosed as part of its advertising inventory. Using proximity as a proxy for exposure is a common-sense, expected method for determining the reach of fixed OOH advertisements. This would allow advertisers to measure the effectiveness of their OOH ad spend, a natural and desirable extension of the base system.
    • Expectation of Success: There would be a high expectation of success in combining York, as it involved applying a simple, well-understood concept (proximity equals exposure) to the existing system to expand its capabilities in a predictable way.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner submitted that for the purposes of the IPR, the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA and in view of the ’755 patent’s specification.
  • The petition explicitly noted that the ’755 patent provides definitions for key terms like "lift," "lift metric," "IP address," and "device identifier," and that Petitioner applied these meanings in its analysis of the prior art. No special constructions were proposed beyond these intrinsic definitions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 10-18, and 22-29 of the ’755 patent as unpatentable.